At 5/22/2014 12:31:21 AM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:and medical experts. It is terrible and it is prevalent. Discuss.

Its really a matter of education. If we got people to understand the basic sciences better then I think there would be less demonization. When I sit down and explain what I do exactly, then people no longer think I just make bombs and narcotics. Its just gullibility and that can luckily be remedied.

At 5/22/2014 12:31:21 AM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:and medical experts. It is terrible and it is prevalent. Discuss.

As terrible as it is, it's always been here. From the origins of human logic to the Space Age, there have always been people who demonize progress. I think that with every generation, there will always be people like this. Some people are simply too stupid for their own good.

At 5/22/2014 12:31:21 AM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:and medical experts. It is terrible and it is prevalent. Discuss.

I think there was a time (in the 1960s-1980s) that being smart, well educated and informed were regarded as virtues. Academics occupied an, if not conspicuous, but respected place in society that they just don't in the hearts and minds of the American public. I think that's for a few reasons: (1) the populist impulse that the Republican party began in the 1990s, and (2) the politicization of scientific issues.

Stem cell research (especially of the embryonic variety) curdles the blood of what's left of our "Moral Majority" (white evangelicals) who don't even really understand what it is other than that it's "baby murder" in the name of some "frankenstien-type witchcraft." Global Climate Change, likewise, is even worse. The problem is that there are people who hold deeply rooted beliefs fall back on what they think they know when faced with something that upsets them. The idea that man could be driving weather patterns unsettles evangelicals because they believe that only God does that. The idea that man's pollution puts the world in perilous danger is at once unfathomable and terrifying, so they deny the truth to assuage both their cognitive dissonance and emotional discomfort that comes from reality. (Evangelicals aren't the only people to do this, btw. -it's basic human nature.)

The reason that people hold on to demonstrably false beliefs is because they don't have the self confidence to learn new things. It's also the reason that (especially older people) are "morally" rigid, in that they refuse to accept the moral permissibility of something like homosexuality, when they've been taught all their lives that it's just about the most horrible thing ever -tantamount to pedophilia and beastiality. And the people know generally, the more "like this" they'll be. It's disparaging, true enough, especially when it's realized that the ignorant tend to raise equally or more ignorant kids, who will then perpetuate a cycle of intellectual poverty -and give birth to the next generation of populist movement conservatives (today, we call them Tea Bagging Republicans).

But what's really fvcked about things now is that whereas populists once were content to reject science as something to be feared because it's against God's will, now they want to use "science" (or some bastardization of it) to legitimize their own regime of "truth." That's why we now have Creationist museums, "public intellectuals" who deny that man is driving global climate change, Auburn University's economic's department, Liberty and Hillsdale University and the Heritage Foundation. (Fox drives a lot of this too because they realize how to frame the window of public discourse with their viewers.) All those groups are actively waging an information war on fact, and they're startlingly effective at it, because their target audience is either too ignorant to distinguish reality, fact and truth from fantasy, myth and lies or those who watch and believe what they hear who are not dullards do so because it's comforting and reinforces what they wish were true.

But scientists (or modern economists) say something that represents reality -like that man's carbon emissions are driving global climate change, or that when the rate of return on capital is greater than economic growth inequality will balloon- conservatives get really uncomfortable, and resent those who had the temerity to challenge what they think they know. That's why it happens; it's only going to get worse, too. The more that conservatives seek intellectual legitimacy (by creating their madrasas of conservatism), the less that the general public is going to be able to delineate the truth from non-truth and the more that the general public is going to resent those who challenge the status quo (i.e. scientists).

At 5/22/2014 12:31:21 AM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:and medical experts. It is terrible and it is prevalent. Discuss.

Can you give some examples?

"Scientists and doctors all work for big pharma, that's why they recommend vaccines that cause autism".

" Global warming is just a big conspiracy of scientists to make a crapton of money"

Scientists lie about evolution because they are anti god"

"Oh congress! Let's cut public finance for scientific research by 75%! In fact, let us issue a quiet legislative ban preventing the CDC from researching something that might oppose our short term election politics!"

At 5/22/2014 12:31:21 AM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:and medical experts. It is terrible and it is prevalent. Discuss.

I think there was a time (in the 1960s-1980s) that being smart, well educated and informed were regarded as virtues. Academics occupied an, if not conspicuous, but respected place in society that they just don't in the hearts and minds of the American public. I think that's for a few reasons: (1) the populist impulse that the Republican party began in the 1990s, and (2) the politicization of scientific issues.

Stem cell research (especially of the embryonic variety) curdles the blood of what's left of our "Moral Majority" (white evangelicals) who don't even really understand what it is other than that it's "baby murder" in the name of some "frankenstien-type witchcraft." Global Climate Change, likewise, is even worse. The problem is that there are people who hold deeply rooted beliefs fall back on what they think they know when faced with something that upsets them. The idea that man could be driving weather patterns unsettles evangelicals because they believe that only God does that. The idea that man's pollution puts the world in perilous danger is at once unfathomable and terrifying, so they deny the truth to assuage both their cognitive dissonance and emotional discomfort that comes from reality. (Evangelicals aren't the only people to do this, btw. -it's basic human nature.)

The reason that people hold on to demonstrably false beliefs is because they don't have the self confidence to learn new things. It's also the reason that (especially older people) are "morally" rigid, in that they refuse to accept the moral permissibility of something like homosexuality, when they've been taught all their lives that it's just about the most horrible thing ever -tantamount to pedophilia and beastiality. And the people know generally, the more "like this" they'll be. It's disparaging, true enough, especially when it's realized that the ignorant tend to raise equally or more ignorant kids, who will then perpetuate a cycle of intellectual poverty -and give birth to the next generation of populist movement conservatives (today, we call them Tea Bagging Republicans).

But what's really fvcked about things now is that whereas populists once were content to reject science as something to be feared because it's against God's will, now they want to use "science" (or some bastardization of it) to legitimize their own regime of "truth." That's why we now have Creationist museums, "public intellectuals" who deny that man is driving global climate change, Auburn University's economic's department, Liberty and Hillsdale University and the Heritage Foundation. (Fox drives a lot of this too because they realize how to frame the window of public discourse with their viewers.) All those groups are actively waging an information war on fact, and they're startlingly effective at it, because their target audience is either too ignorant to distinguish reality, fact and truth from fantasy, myth and lies or those who watch and believe what they hear who are not dullards do so because it's comforting and reinforces what they wish were true.

But scientists (or modern economists) say something that represents reality -like that man's carbon emissions are driving global climate change, or that when the rate of return on capital is greater than economic growth inequality will balloon- conservatives get really uncomfortable, and resent those who had the temerity to challenge what they think they know. That's why it happens; it's only going to get worse, too. The more that conservatives seek intellectual legitimacy (by creating their madrasas of conservatism), the less that the general public is going to be able to delineate the truth from non-truth and the more that the general public is going to resent those who challenge the status quo (i.e. scientists).

It sounds like you're demonizing creationist scientists.

About 60% of the US population believes in evolution. The 40% (the minority) who don't are obviously not convinced about what the scientific status quo (i.e., evolutionist scientists) claims.

One might say that 60% of Americans are educated, intelligent, the 40% uneducated, unintelligent. However, not everyone who embraces evolution understands evolution, are educated, particularly intelligent, etc. Some embrace it because the majority do, are influenced by the movies (Planet Of The Apes, 2001 A Space Odyssey, etc,), or are atheists.

In other words, the concern doesn't seem to be the fact that many people who embrace evolution don't really understand it, but that there are those who don't embrace it. Which tells me that this whole charade is not much different than a historical European religious theocracy where the understanding the religion from the populace itself was not really important (or even non-preferred), just the acceptance of it as fact.

At 5/22/2014 12:31:21 AM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:and medical experts. It is terrible and it is prevalent. Discuss.

I think there was a time (in the 1960s-1980s) that being smart, well educated and informed were regarded as virtues. Academics occupied an, if not conspicuous, but respected place in society that they just don't in the hearts and minds of the American public. I think that's for a few reasons: (1) the populist impulse that the Republican party began in the 1990s, and (2) the politicization of scientific issues.

Stem cell research (especially of the embryonic variety) curdles the blood of what's left of our "Moral Majority" (white evangelicals) who don't even really understand what it is other than that it's "baby murder" in the name of some "frankenstien-type witchcraft." Global Climate Change, likewise, is even worse. The problem is that there are people who hold deeply rooted beliefs fall back on what they think they know when faced with something that upsets them. The idea that man could be driving weather patterns unsettles evangelicals because they believe that only God does that. The idea that man's pollution puts the world in perilous danger is at once unfathomable and terrifying, so they deny the truth to assuage both their cognitive dissonance and emotional discomfort that comes from reality. (Evangelicals aren't the only people to do this, btw. -it's basic human nature.)

The reason that people hold on to demonstrably false beliefs is because they don't have the self confidence to learn new things. It's also the reason that (especially older people) are "morally" rigid, in that they refuse to accept the moral permissibility of something like homosexuality, when they've been taught all their lives that it's just about the most horrible thing ever -tantamount to pedophilia and beastiality. And the people know generally, the more "like this" they'll be. It's disparaging, true enough, especially when it's realized that the ignorant tend to raise equally or more ignorant kids, who will then perpetuate a cycle of intellectual poverty -and give birth to the next generation of populist movement conservatives (today, we call them Tea Bagging Republicans).

But what's really fvcked about things now is that whereas populists once were content to reject science as something to be feared because it's against God's will, now they want to use "science" (or some bastardization of it) to legitimize their own regime of "truth." That's why we now have Creationist museums, "public intellectuals" who deny that man is driving global climate change, Auburn University's economic's department, Liberty and Hillsdale University and the Heritage Foundation. (Fox drives a lot of this too because they realize how to frame the window of public discourse with their viewers.) All those groups are actively waging an information war on fact, and they're startlingly effective at it, because their target audience is either too ignorant to distinguish reality, fact and truth from fantasy, myth and lies or those who watch and believe what they hear who are not dullards do so because it's comforting and reinforces what they wish were true.

But scientists (or modern economists) say something that represents reality -like that man's carbon emissions are driving global climate change, or that when the rate of return on capital is greater than economic growth inequality will balloon- conservatives get really uncomfortable, and resent those who had the temerity to challenge what they think they know. That's why it happens; it's only going to get worse, too. The more that conservatives seek intellectual legitimacy (by creating their madrasas of conservatism), the less that the general public is going to be able to delineate the truth from non-truth and the more that the general public is going to resent those who challenge the status quo (i.e. scientists).

It sounds like you're demonizing creationist scientists.

About 60% of the US population believes in evolution. The 40% (the minority) who don't are obviously not convinced about what the scientific status quo (i.e., evolutionist scientists) claims.

One might say that 60% of Americans are educated, intelligent, the 40% uneducated, unintelligent. However, not everyone who embraces evolution understands evolution, are educated, particularly intelligent, etc. Some embrace it because the majority do, are influenced by the movies (Planet Of The Apes, 2001 A Space Odyssey, etc,), or are atheists.

In other words, the concern doesn't seem to be the fact that many people who embrace evolution don't really understand it, but that there are those who don't embrace it. Which tells me that this whole charade is not much different than a historical European religious theocracy where the understanding the religion from the populace itself was not really important (or even non-preferred), just the acceptance of it as fact.

At 5/22/2014 12:31:21 AM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:and medical experts. It is terrible and it is prevalent. Discuss.

I think there was a time (in the 1960s-1980s) that being smart, well educated and informed were regarded as virtues. Academics occupied an, if not conspicuous, but respected place in society that they just don't in the hearts and minds of the American public. I think that's for a few reasons: (1) the populist impulse that the Republican party began in the 1990s, and (2) the politicization of scientific issues.

Stem cell research (especially of the embryonic variety) curdles the blood of what's left of our "Moral Majority" (white evangelicals) who don't even really understand what it is other than that it's "baby murder" in the name of some "frankenstien-type witchcraft." Global Climate Change, likewise, is even worse. The problem is that there are people who hold deeply rooted beliefs fall back on what they think they know when faced with something that upsets them. The idea that man could be driving weather patterns unsettles evangelicals because they believe that only God does that. The idea that man's pollution puts the world in perilous danger is at once unfathomable and terrifying, so they deny the truth to assuage both their cognitive dissonance and emotional discomfort that comes from reality. (Evangelicals aren't the only people to do this, btw. -it's basic human nature.)

The reason that people hold on to demonstrably false beliefs is because they don't have the self confidence to learn new things. It's also the reason that (especially older people) are "morally" rigid, in that they refuse to accept the moral permissibility of something like homosexuality, when they've been taught all their lives that it's just about the most horrible thing ever -tantamount to pedophilia and beastiality. And the people know generally, the more "like this" they'll be. It's disparaging, true enough, especially when it's realized that the ignorant tend to raise equally or more ignorant kids, who will then perpetuate a cycle of intellectual poverty -and give birth to the next generation of populist movement conservatives (today, we call them Tea Bagging Republicans).

But what's really fvcked about things now is that whereas populists once were content to reject science as something to be feared because it's against God's will, now they want to use "science" (or some bastardization of it) to legitimize their own regime of "truth." That's why we now have Creationist museums, "public intellectuals" who deny that man is driving global climate change, Auburn University's economic's department, Liberty and Hillsdale University and the Heritage Foundation. (Fox drives a lot of this too because they realize how to frame the window of public discourse with their viewers.) All those groups are actively waging an information war on fact, and they're startlingly effective at it, because their target audience is either too ignorant to distinguish reality, fact and truth from fantasy, myth and lies or those who watch and believe what they hear who are not dullards do so because it's comforting and reinforces what they wish were true.

But scientists (or modern economists) say something that represents reality -like that man's carbon emissions are driving global climate change, or that when the rate of return on capital is greater than economic growth inequality will balloon- conservatives get really uncomfortable, and resent those who had the temerity to challenge what they think they know. That's why it happens; it's only going to get worse, too. The more that conservatives seek intellectual legitimacy (by creating their madrasas of conservatism), the less that the general public is going to be able to delineate the truth from non-truth and the more that the general public is going to resent those who challenge the status quo (i.e. scientists).

It sounds like you're demonizing creationist scientists.

About 60% of the US population believes in evolution. The 40% (the minority) who don't are obviously not convinced about what the scientific status quo (i.e., evolutionist scientists) claims.

One might say that 60% of Americans are educated, intelligent, the 40% uneducated, unintelligent. However, not everyone who embraces evolution understands evolution, are educated, particularly intelligent, etc. Some embrace it because the majority do, are influenced by the movies (Planet Of The Apes, 2001 A Space Odyssey, etc,), or are atheists.

In other words, the concern doesn't seem to be the fact that many people who embrace evolution don't really understand it, but that there are those who don't embrace it. Which tells me that this whole charade is not much different than a historical European religious theocracy where the understanding the religion from the populace itself was not really important (or even non-preferred), just the acceptance of it as fact.

No such thing as a creation scientist.

I said creationist scientist. Someone who is a scientist, and at the same time a creationist.

At 5/22/2014 12:31:21 AM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:and medical experts. It is terrible and it is prevalent. Discuss.

I think there was a time (in the 1960s-1980s) that being smart, well educated and informed were regarded as virtues. Academics occupied an, if not conspicuous, but respected place in society that they just don't in the hearts and minds of the American public. I think that's for a few reasons: (1) the populist impulse that the Republican party began in the 1990s, and (2) the politicization of scientific issues.

Stem cell research (especially of the embryonic variety) curdles the blood of what's left of our "Moral Majority" (white evangelicals) who don't even really understand what it is other than that it's "baby murder" in the name of some "frankenstien-type witchcraft." Global Climate Change, likewise, is even worse. The problem is that there are people who hold deeply rooted beliefs fall back on what they think they know when faced with something that upsets them. The idea that man could be driving weather patterns unsettles evangelicals because they believe that only God does that. The idea that man's pollution puts the world in perilous danger is at once unfathomable and terrifying, so they deny the truth to assuage both their cognitive dissonance and emotional discomfort that comes from reality. (Evangelicals aren't the only people to do this, btw. -it's basic human nature.)

The reason that people hold on to demonstrably false beliefs is because they don't have the self confidence to learn new things. It's also the reason that (especially older people) are "morally" rigid, in that they refuse to accept the moral permissibility of something like homosexuality, when they've been taught all their lives that it's just about the most horrible thing ever -tantamount to pedophilia and beastiality. And the people know generally, the more "like this" they'll be. It's disparaging, true enough, especially when it's realized that the ignorant tend to raise equally or more ignorant kids, who will then perpetuate a cycle of intellectual poverty -and give birth to the next generation of populist movement conservatives (today, we call them Tea Bagging Republicans).

But what's really fvcked about things now is that whereas populists once were content to reject science as something to be feared because it's against God's will, now they want to use "science" (or some bastardization of it) to legitimize their own regime of "truth." That's why we now have Creationist museums, "public intellectuals" who deny that man is driving global climate change, Auburn University's economic's department, Liberty and Hillsdale University and the Heritage Foundation. (Fox drives a lot of this too because they realize how to frame the window of public discourse with their viewers.) All those groups are actively waging an information war on fact, and they're startlingly effective at it, because their target audience is either too ignorant to distinguish reality, fact and truth from fantasy, myth and lies or those who watch and believe what they hear who are not dullards do so because it's comforting and reinforces what they wish were true.

But scientists (or modern economists) say something that represents reality -like that man's carbon emissions are driving global climate change, or that when the rate of return on capital is greater than economic growth inequality will balloon- conservatives get really uncomfortable, and resent those who had the temerity to challenge what they think they know. That's why it happens; it's only going to get worse, too. The more that conservatives seek intellectual legitimacy (by creating their madrasas of conservatism), the less that the general public is going to be able to delineate the truth from non-truth and the more that the general public is going to resent those who challenge the status quo (i.e. scientists).

It sounds like you're demonizing creationist scientists.

About 60% of the US population believes in evolution. The 40% (the minority) who don't are obviously not convinced about what the scientific status quo (i.e., evolutionist scientists) claims.

One might say that 60% of Americans are educated, intelligent, the 40% uneducated, unintelligent. However, not everyone who embraces evolution understands evolution, are educated, particularly intelligent, etc. Some embrace it because the majority do, are influenced by the movies (Planet Of The Apes, 2001 A Space Odyssey, etc,), or are atheists.

In other words, the concern doesn't seem to be the fact that many people who embrace evolution don't really understand it, but that there are those who don't embrace it. Which tells me that this whole charade is not much different than a historical European religious theocracy where the understanding the religion from the populace itself was not really important (or even non-preferred), just the acceptance of it as fact.

No such thing as a creation scientist.

I said creationist scientist. Someone who is a scientist, and at the same time a creationist.

Right, I missed that. No, He is not demonizing creationist scientists, he is complaining about the fact that 40% of Americans demonize the scientists who are not creationists, because of a fundamental ignorance and brainwashing.

At 5/22/2014 12:31:21 AM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:and medical experts. It is terrible and it is prevalent. Discuss.

I think there was a time (in the 1960s-1980s) that being smart, well educated and informed were regarded as virtues. Academics occupied an, if not conspicuous, but respected place in society that they just don't in the hearts and minds of the American public. I think that's for a few reasons: (1) the populist impulse that the Republican party began in the 1990s, and (2) the politicization of scientific issues.

Stem cell research (especially of the embryonic variety) curdles the blood of what's left of our "Moral Majority" (white evangelicals) who don't even really understand what it is other than that it's "baby murder" in the name of some "frankenstien-type witchcraft." Global Climate Change, likewise, is even worse. The problem is that there are people who hold deeply rooted beliefs fall back on what they think they know when faced with something that upsets them. The idea that man could be driving weather patterns unsettles evangelicals because they believe that only God does that. The idea that man's pollution puts the world in perilous danger is at once unfathomable and terrifying, so they deny the truth to assuage both their cognitive dissonance and emotional discomfort that comes from reality. (Evangelicals aren't the only people to do this, btw. -it's basic human nature.)

The reason that people hold on to demonstrably false beliefs is because they don't have the self confidence to learn new things. It's also the reason that (especially older people) are "morally" rigid, in that they refuse to accept the moral permissibility of something like homosexuality, when they've been taught all their lives that it's just about the most horrible thing ever -tantamount to pedophilia and beastiality. And the people know generally, the more "like this" they'll be. It's disparaging, true enough, especially when it's realized that the ignorant tend to raise equally or more ignorant kids, who will then perpetuate a cycle of intellectual poverty -and give birth to the next generation of populist movement conservatives (today, we call them Tea Bagging Republicans).

But what's really fvcked about things now is that whereas populists once were content to reject science as something to be feared because it's against God's will, now they want to use "science" (or some bastardization of it) to legitimize their own regime of "truth." That's why we now have Creationist museums, "public intellectuals" who deny that man is driving global climate change, Auburn University's economic's department, Liberty and Hillsdale University and the Heritage Foundation. (Fox drives a lot of this too because they realize how to frame the window of public discourse with their viewers.) All those groups are actively waging an information war on fact, and they're startlingly effective at it, because their target audience is either too ignorant to distinguish reality, fact and truth from fantasy, myth and lies or those who watch and believe what they hear who are not dullards do so because it's comforting and reinforces what they wish were true.

But scientists (or modern economists) say something that represents reality -like that man's carbon emissions are driving global climate change, or that when the rate of return on capital is greater than economic growth inequality will balloon- conservatives get really uncomfortable, and resent those who had the temerity to challenge what they think they know. That's why it happens; it's only going to get worse, too. The more that conservatives seek intellectual legitimacy (by creating their madrasas of conservatism), the less that the general public is going to be able to delineate the truth from non-truth and the more that the general public is going to resent those who challenge the status quo (i.e. scientists).

It sounds like you're demonizing creationist scientists.

About 60% of the US population believes in evolution. The 40% (the minority) who don't are obviously not convinced about what the scientific status quo (i.e., evolutionist scientists) claims.

One might say that 60% of Americans are educated, intelligent, the 40% uneducated, unintelligent. However, not everyone who embraces evolution understands evolution, are educated, particularly intelligent, etc. Some embrace it because the majority do, are influenced by the movies (Planet Of The Apes, 2001 A Space Odyssey, etc,), or are atheists.

In other words, the concern doesn't seem to be the fact that many people who embrace evolution don't really understand it, but that there are those who don't embrace it. Which tells me that this whole charade is not much different than a historical European religious theocracy where the understanding the religion from the populace itself was not really important (or even non-preferred), just the acceptance of it as fact.

At 5/22/2014 12:31:21 AM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:and medical experts. It is terrible and it is prevalent. Discuss.

I think there was a time (in the 1960s-1980s) that being smart, well educated and informed were regarded as virtues.

I don't think it's a coincidence that the "good" time you're describing roughly coincides with the Cold War, or that the demonization of science/medicine has happened after its end. When there's a common enemy and a common goal, we can send people to the moon using slide rules. When there isn't....

Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!

At 5/22/2014 12:31:21 AM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:and medical experts. It is terrible and it is prevalent. Discuss.

I think there was a time (in the 1960s-1980s) that being smart, well educated and informed were regarded as virtues.

I don't think it's a coincidence that the "good" time you're describing roughly coincides with the Cold War, or that the demonization of science/medicine has happened after its end. When there's a common enemy and a common goal, we can send people to the moon using slide rules. When there isn't....

I think you're right, man. It's sad that that's how it is.... but that's how it is.

About 60% of the US population believes in evolution. The 40% (the minority) who don't are obviously not convinced about what the scientific status quo (i.e., evolutionist scientists) claims.

One might say that 60% of Americans are educated, intelligent, the 40% uneducated, unintelligent. However, not everyone who embraces evolution understands evolution, are educated, particularly intelligent, etc. Some embrace it because the majority do, are influenced by the movies (Planet Of The Apes, 2001 A Space Odyssey, etc,), or are atheists.

In other words, the concern doesn't seem to be the fact that many people who embrace evolution don't really understand it, but that there are those who don't embrace it. Which tells me that this whole charade is not much different than a historical European religious theocracy where the understanding the religion from the populace itself was not really important (or even non-preferred), just the acceptance of it as fact.

It's true that only about 60% of American's believe in evolution, but I disagree with your analysis beyond that. You say that not everyone who believes in evolution understands it, which is probably true, but this also goes the other way. Not everyone who disbelieves in evolution does so because they find fundamental flaws in the theory, but rather because they think it somehow conflicts with their other beliefs on religion, or because they heard someone else say it was false and took them at their word.

If you want to look at only people who are making informed decisions from their personal research, then it would be best to look only at the consensus of evolutionist or creationist scientists. According to a Pew Research Poll, 97% of scientists believe evolution is the correct theory of how life developed. 87% believe that this is purely through natural processes, which means that 13% of scientists believe God was directly involved with creation of life, as opposed to a more deistic approach, and only 3% are creationists, the other 10% believing evolution is a direct act of God.

That there are people who would deny evolution as a valid and likely theory is less a demonstration that evolution is flawed, and more a demonstration that society always has contrarians who will choose to disagree with a general consensus. This might be due to absolute fundamentalism. This might be because its alot easier to be considered a high authority among a very small pool of creationists than in a large pool of evolutionists. It might be because there are plenty of groups willing to fund research to disprove evolution and not as many which fund research to prove what already has a lot of evidence. But don't act like this is a 50/50 split, because it isnt.

At 5/22/2014 12:31:21 AM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:and medical experts. It is terrible and it is prevalent. Discuss.

I think there was a time (in the 1960s-1980s) that being smart, well educated and informed were regarded as virtues.

I don't think it's a coincidence that the "good" time you're describing roughly coincides with the Cold War, or that the demonization of science/medicine has happened after its end. When there's a common enemy and a common goal, we can send people to the moon using slide rules. When there isn't....

I am glad that you brought this up,because it is actually a serious tie-in. During the cold war, there were clear "Good Guys and Bad Guys" in the eyes of the first world public. The bastion of "Good-Guy-ism" was the American president. If you were opposed to the American President, you were a commie bastard. And then Watergate happened. Watergate seriously wounded American confidence in authority figures, and produced a deep and chronic cynicism that many Americans are raised on today. "Never trust the authority, they always have a hidden agenda" is a concept ingrained in so many minds today. Compounded upon this is the fact that we no longer have a "Bad Guy" to blame, so now people search for artificial enemies. Some find them among scientists and medical experts. another nuance, along with being taught that experts cannot be trusted and that everyone must "think independently", American children are not taught to think independently. Whenever someone tries to teach independent thought, religious and political groups go on the warpath over "Brainwashing".

Oh? and add educators to the group of wrongfully demonized good-doers as well.

People create their own versions of the truth when they cannot reconcile themselves with reality. It's the reason why people blame a vengeful god for natural disasters (rather than global warming) as much as it's the reason that even members of DDO create elaborate fantasies and recall them as memories when they relate to what actually transpired in response to conflicts. And, when they can no longer relegate their consciousness to the periphery of sanity (presumably because others point out their delusion), they are bitter and resentful of the one who told them they were wrong and they are even more convinced that they were right in the first place. Bill Nye was right when he said that science and the Republican Party (and it's vast array of wannabe intellectual outfits like the Heritage Foundation) disagree on "the facts" -but it's more than that. Science and Republicans disagree on how we can know stuff; what makes reality intelligible.

At 5/22/2014 10:43:02 PM, YYW wrote:People create their own versions of the truth when they cannot reconcile themselves with reality.

Some would call this mental illness. Others, like me, will ask "How do we know that our reality is not another's fantasy?"

It's the reason why people blame a vengeful god for natural disasters (rather than global warming) as much as it's the reason that even members of DDO create elaborate fantasies and recall them as memories when they relate to what actually transpired in response to conflicts. And, when they can no longer relegate their consciousness to the periphery of sanity (presumably because others point out their delusion), they are bitter and resentful of the one who told them they were wrong and they are even more convinced that they were right in the first place. Bill Nye was right when he said that science and the Republican Party (and it's vast array of wannabe intellectual outfits like the Heritage Foundation)

I hate the heritage foundation with a passion.

disagree on "the facts" -but it's more than that. Science and Republicans disagree on how we can know stuff; what makes reality intelligible.

One thing I want to point out is that I generally try to avoid generalizing conservatives. Some of them are legitimately and present sensible arguments.

At 5/22/2014 10:43:02 PM, YYW wrote:People create their own versions of the truth when they cannot reconcile themselves with reality.

Some would call this mental illness.

Yes. Mental health professionals, for example.

Others, like me, will ask "How do we know that our reality is not another's fantasy?"

Empirical evidence.

It's the reason why people blame a vengeful god for natural disasters (rather than global warming) as much as it's the reason that even members of DDO create elaborate fantasies and recall them as memories when they relate to what actually transpired in response to conflicts. And, when they can no longer relegate their consciousness to the periphery of sanity (presumably because others point out their delusion), they are bitter and resentful of the one who told them they were wrong and they are even more convinced that they were right in the first place. Bill Nye was right when he said that science and the Republican Party (and it's vast array of wannabe intellectual outfits like the Heritage Foundation)

I hate the heritage foundation with a passion.

Don't even get me started. They were a complete joke even before Jim DeMint, but now... they're beyond hope.

disagree on "the facts" -but it's more than that. Science and Republicans disagree on how we can know stuff; what makes reality intelligible.

One thing I want to point out is that I generally try to avoid generalizing conservatives. Some of them are legitimately and present sensible arguments.

When I say "Republicans" I mean "those who buy into the party line." But conservatives are a vast and diverse bunch, complicated and frustrating as they are.

At 5/22/2014 10:43:02 PM, YYW wrote:People create their own versions of the truth when they cannot reconcile themselves with reality.

Some would call this mental illness.

Yes. Mental health professionals, for example.

True

Others, like me, will ask "How do we know that our reality is not another's fantasy?"

Empirical evidence.

Well said

It's the reason why people blame a vengeful god for natural disasters (rather than global warming) as much as it's the reason that even members of DDO create elaborate fantasies and recall them as memories when they relate to what actually transpired in response to conflicts. And, when they can no longer relegate their consciousness to the periphery of sanity (presumably because others point out their delusion), they are bitter and resentful of the one who told them they were wrong and they are even more convinced that they were right in the first place. Bill Nye was right when he said that science and the Republican Party (and it's vast array of wannabe intellectual outfits like the Heritage Foundation)

I hate the heritage foundation with a passion.

Don't even get me started. They were a complete joke even before Jim DeMint, but now... they're beyond hope.

disagree on "the facts" -but it's more than that. Science and Republicans disagree on how we can know stuff; what makes reality intelligible.

One thing I want to point out is that I generally try to avoid generalizing conservatives. Some of them are legitimately and present sensible arguments.

When I say "Republicans" I mean "those who buy into the party line." But conservatives are a vast and diverse bunch, complicated and frustrating as they are.

At 5/22/2014 12:31:21 AM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:and medical experts. It is terrible and it is prevalent. Discuss.

Can you give some examples?

"Scientists and doctors all work for big pharma, that's why they recommend vaccines that cause autism".

" Global warming is just a big conspiracy of scientists to make a crapton of money"

Scientists lie about evolution because they are anti god"

"Oh congress! Let's cut public finance for scientific research by 75%! In fact, let us issue a quiet legislative ban preventing the CDC from researching something that might oppose our short term election politics!"

Just a few of the more widespread ones.

Every group gets demonized. I don't think scientists (i.e., evolutionist scientists) are any more demonized than anyone else. I will admit that they don't get quite the plug they used to get at the beginning of those cheesy 50's sci-fi movies. Some of these quotes you mentioned are a bit too political, and some look like random quotes from internet forums.

Something like Scientists lie about evolution because they are anti god" seem akin to something like evangelicals are all uneducated redneck hicks. Yeah, we can find these types of quotes. But they don't really qualify as evidence of any significant demonizing.

And quite frankly, science is not the most popular subject among the human populace. I think we can see this when looking at percentages on how many people purchase science periodicals, view science programs on television, major in fields of science, move into science oriented careers, etc. Not everyone is wowed by the cosmos. Many couldn't care less about rock formations, plant life, animal species, etc.

For every person with a telescope looking at Orion every night, absolutely mesmerized, there's 4 with a monkey wrench mesmerized by their 455 engine in their GTO. And that person with the monkey wrench is no less intelligent. If their car should break down on the road, they have a better chance of not having to call a tow truck than that Carl Sagan type coming back (hopefully not going to) the observatory.

And I doubt things have changed much from the 60's through the 80's. There may be more political issues that highlight certain areas of science that cause contention (welcome to the world). But demonize?

At 5/22/2014 12:31:21 AM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:and medical experts. It is terrible and it is prevalent. Discuss.

I think there was a time (in the 1960s-1980s) that being smart, well educated and informed were regarded as virtues. Academics occupied an, if not conspicuous, but respected place in society that they just don't in the hearts and minds of the American public. I think that's for a few reasons: (1) the populist impulse that the Republican party began in the 1990s, and (2) the politicization of scientific issues.

Stem cell research (especially of the embryonic variety) curdles the blood of what's left of our "Moral Majority" (white evangelicals) who don't even really understand what it is other than that it's "baby murder" in the name of some "frankenstien-type witchcraft." Global Climate Change, likewise, is even worse. The problem is that there are people who hold deeply rooted beliefs fall back on what they think they know when faced with something that upsets them. The idea that man could be driving weather patterns unsettles evangelicals because they believe that only God does that. The idea that man's pollution puts the world in perilous danger is at once unfathomable and terrifying, so they deny the truth to assuage both their cognitive dissonance and emotional discomfort that comes from reality. (Evangelicals aren't the only people to do this, btw. -it's basic human nature.)

The reason that people hold on to demonstrably false beliefs is because they don't have the self confidence to learn new things. It's also the reason that (especially older people) are "morally" rigid, in that they refuse to accept the moral permissibility of something like homosexuality, when they've been taught all their lives that it's just about the most horrible thing ever -tantamount to pedophilia and beastiality. And the people know generally, the more "like this" they'll be. It's disparaging, true enough, especially when it's realized that the ignorant tend to raise equally or more ignorant kids, who will then perpetuate a cycle of intellectual poverty -and give birth to the next generation of populist movement conservatives (today, we call them Tea Bagging Republicans).

But what's really fvcked about things now is that whereas populists once were content to reject science as something to be feared because it's against God's will, now they want to use "science" (or some bastardization of it) to legitimize their own regime of "truth." That's why we now have Creationist museums, "public intellectuals" who deny that man is driving global climate change, Auburn University's economic's department, Liberty and Hillsdale University and the Heritage Foundation. (Fox drives a lot of this too because they realize how to frame the window of public discourse with their viewers.) All those groups are actively waging an information war on fact, and they're startlingly effective at it, because their target audience is either too ignorant to distinguish reality, fact and truth from fantasy, myth and lies or those who watch and believe what they hear who are not dullards do so because it's comforting and reinforces what they wish were true.

But scientists (or modern economists) say something that represents reality -like that man's carbon emissions are driving global climate change, or that when the rate of return on capital is greater than economic growth inequality will balloon- conservatives get really uncomfortable, and resent those who had the temerity to challenge what they think they know. That's why it happens; it's only going to get worse, too. The more that conservatives seek intellectual legitimacy (by creating their madrasas of conservatism), the less that the general public is going to be able to delineate the truth from non-truth and the more that the general public is going to resent those who challenge the status quo (i.e. scientists).

It sounds like you're demonizing creationist scientists.

About 60% of the US population believes in evolution. The 40% (the minority) who don't are obviously not convinced about what the scientific status quo (i.e., evolutionist scientists) claims.

One might say that 60% of Americans are educated, intelligent, the 40% uneducated, unintelligent. However, not everyone who embraces evolution understands evolution, are educated, particularly intelligent, etc. Some embrace it because the majority do, are influenced by the movies (Planet Of The Apes, 2001 A Space Odyssey, etc,), or are atheists.

In other words, the concern doesn't seem to be the fact that many people who embrace evolution don't really understand it, but that there are those who don't embrace it. Which tells me that this whole charade is not much different than a historical European religious theocracy where the understanding the religion from the populace itself was not really important (or even non-preferred), just the acceptance of it as fact.

No such thing as a creation scientist.

I said creationist scientist. Someone who is a scientist, and at the same time a creationist.

Right, I missed that. No, He is not demonizing creationist scientists, he is complaining about the fact that 40% of Americans demonize the scientists who are not creationists, because of a fundamental ignorance and brainwashing.

Really? And how would you know that?

Do you really think that because 40% of the American population are not evolutionists that they've all been brainwashed and demonize scientists (i.e., evolutionist scientists)? I'm afraid you will have to prove that one.

But even if that were so, why are you complaining about the minority opinion? That's why I created said quote. The post I quoted seemed to suggest that the conservative creationist is the status quo. Something is not quite meshing here.

About 60% of the US population believes in evolution. The 40% (the minority) who don't are obviously not convinced about what the scientific status quo (i.e., evolutionist scientists) claims.

One might say that 60% of Americans are educated, intelligent, the 40% uneducated, unintelligent. However, not everyone who embraces evolution understands evolution, are educated, particularly intelligent, etc. Some embrace it because the majority do, are influenced by the movies (Planet Of The Apes, 2001 A Space Odyssey, etc,), or are atheists.

In other words, the concern doesn't seem to be the fact that many people who embrace evolution don't really understand it, but that there are those who don't embrace it. Which tells me that this whole charade is not much different than a historical European religious theocracy where the understanding the religion from the populace itself was not really important (or even non-preferred), just the acceptance of it as fact.

It's true that only about 60% of American's believe in evolution, but I disagree with your analysis beyond that. You say that not everyone who believes in evolution understands it, which is probably true, but this also goes the other way. Not everyone who disbelieves in evolution does so because they find fundamental flaws in the theory, but rather because they think it somehow conflicts with their other beliefs on religion, or because they heard someone else say it was false and took them at their word.

Sure it goes the other way. The majority of humans are not scientists. There's variations of interest in science where some non-scientists know more about science than others (took courses in science, but never made it a career). But these non-professional scientists with a certain amount of scientific knowledge are not relegated to evolutionists. There are plenty of creationists just as mesmerized by the cosmos as evolutionists. What is developing is a form of lingo that in-betweeners learn which might give the impression that they understand science to the degree of being able to argue for/against creation/evolution.

If you want to look at only people who are making informed decisions from their personal research, then it would be best to look only at the consensus of evolutionist or creationist scientists. According to a Pew Research Poll, 97% of scientists believe evolution is the correct theory of how life developed. 87% believe that this is purely through natural processes, which means that 13% of scientists believe God was directly involved with creation of life, as opposed to a more deistic approach, and only 3% are creationists, the other 10% believing evolution is a direct act of God.

Quite frankly, no, I don't want to base any significance on a consensus of scientists to judge whether or not naturalistic evolution is true, because the 87% you're speaking of are atheists. Scientists, as wonderful and knowledgeable as they are, are not the authority on matters of religion (the spiritual realm). Scientists, like everyone else, are moved by bias, and are involved in politics (the Dr. James Watson scandal being a good example of politics).

That there are people who would deny evolution as a valid and likely theory is less a demonstration that evolution is flawed, and more a demonstration that society always has contrarians who will choose to disagree with a general consensus. This might be due to absolute fundamentalism. This might be because its alot easier to be considered a high authority among a very small pool of creationists than in a large pool of evolutionists. It might be because there are plenty of groups willing to fund research to disprove evolution and not as many which fund research to prove what already has a lot of evidence. But don't act like this is a 50/50 split, because it isnt.

The 40% who don't buy into evolution, for whatever reason, are not caught into the atheist manifesto paradigm. As hard as it may be to believe, the atheist mantras "God has not been proven", "There is no evidence of God", do not hold true for everyone.

You're it might be's are of course very limited in spite of it's apparent intended impression of variety, all suggesting an ill-ulterior motive. To say This might be because its alot easier to be considered a high authority among a very small pool of creationists than in a large pool of evolutionists could be akin to me saying It might be that evolutionist scientists revel in being placed on a pedestal, embracing the role as priests of intellectual enlightenment. There probably are some that do, but I don't want to trap all evolutionists into a 3 or 4 category box.

There are very odd things going on in the arena of science/religion (like issues of religious freedom) that interact with multiple arenas of society including. The evolution issue is all about religion.

At 5/23/2014 10:43:10 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:Sure it goes the other way. The majority of humans are not scientists. There's variations of interest in science where some non-scientists know more about science than others (took courses in science, but never made it a career). But these non-professional scientists with a certain amount of scientific knowledge are not relegated to evolutionists. There are plenty of creationists just as mesmerized by the cosmos as evolutionists. What is developing is a form of lingo that in-betweeners learn which might give the impression that they understand science to the degree of being able to argue for/against creation/evolution.

I can agree with that. There are lots of credible scientists who are religious, and I'm not trying to say their work and findings are any less valid than atheist ones.

Quite frankly, no, I don't want to base any significance on a consensus of scientists to judge whether or not naturalistic evolution is true, because the 87% you're speaking of are atheists. Scientists, as wonderful and knowledgeable as they are, are not the authority on matters of religion (the spiritual realm). Scientists, like everyone else, are moved by bias, and are involved in politics (the Dr. James Watson scandal being a good example of politics).

This is not quite true. The 87% aren't atheist scientists, just scientists who don't believe God guided evolution. If 87% of scientists were atheists that would clash with the large majority of people who describe themselves as religious. The same poll where I got the 87% statistic also gives data to show that lots of religious people believe evolution is valid, so I don't think being part of that group of scientists precludes any of them from being religious. All I know for sure is that the other 13% definitely IS. But I'm willing to wager that 87% is a mix of atheists and religious scientists who simply believe some parts of the Bible are not literal. And probably a few of them are Hindu like me, because there are lots of non-Abrahamic religions which may or may not have a problem with evolution.

The 40% who don't buy into evolution, for whatever reason, are not caught into the atheist manifesto paradigm. As hard as it may be to believe, the atheist mantras "God has not been proven", "There is no evidence of God", do not hold true for everyone.

You're it might be's are of course very limited in spite of it's apparent intended impression of variety, all suggesting an ill-ulterior motive. To say This might be because its alot easier to be considered a high authority among a very small pool of creationists than in a large pool of evolutionists could be akin to me saying It might be that evolutionist scientists revel in being placed on a pedestal, embracing the role as priests of intellectual enlightenment. There probably are some that do, but I don't want to trap all evolutionists into a 3 or 4 category box.

Your point is probably true, some evolutionist scientists could have ulterior motives. The point I was trying to make is that there are a variety of reasons for taking a given stance on any issue, so the fact that there is dissent over evolution doesn't necessarily mean there are flaws in the theory. The fact that there is a very small proportion of dissent among those who study this field, though, I think is fair reason to believe that the theory is sound.

There are very odd things going on in the arena of science/religion (like issues of religious freedom) that interact with multiple arenas of society including. The evolution issue is all about religion.

As far as the 50-50 split, I'm not sure what you're talking about.

I still don't think that is true. There's no reason that a God can't exist and evolution still be a thing. 10% of scientists clearly think that is the case, and that God caused evolution, so there must be some religious viewpoint that allows it. So I think people who are very committed to their current beliefs and don't want to consider the possibility of adapting them to new information are making this into an issue when it doesn't need to be. This is a problem because it implies that they hold their beliefs not because they are right, but because thats the first thing they heard and they stuck with it.

Quite frankly, no, I don't want to base any significance on a consensus of scientists to judge whether or not naturalistic evolution is true, because the 87% you're speaking of are atheists. Scientists, as wonderful and knowledgeable as they are, are not the authority on matters of religion (the spiritual realm). Scientists, like everyone else, are moved by bias, and are involved in politics (the Dr. James Watson scandal being a good example of politics).

This is not quite true. The 87% aren't atheist scientists, just scientists who don't believe God guided evolution. If 87% of scientists were atheists that would clash with the large majority of people who describe themselves as religious. The same poll where I got the 87% statistic also gives data to show that lots of religious people believe evolution is valid, so I don't think being part of that group of scientists precludes any of them from being religious. All I know for sure is that the other 13% definitely IS. But I'm willing to wager that 87% is a mix of atheists and religious scientists who simply believe some parts of the Bible are not literal. And probably a few of them are Hindu like me, because there are lots of non-Abrahamic religions which may or may not have a problem with evolution.

I had usually referenced the 95% of biological scientists that are members of the National Academy Of Sciences who profess to be atheists and agnostics. But even there, yes it's true that it doesn't specify how many are actually atheists. I tend to relate natural evolutionists to atheists, possibly because the one's that are fairly vocal about religion tend to be professed atheists. So yes, I can't claim that all scientists who fall into these various statistics are atheists.

The 40% who don't buy into evolution, for whatever reason, are not caught into the atheist manifesto paradigm. As hard as it may be to believe, the atheist mantras "God has not been proven", "There is no evidence of God", do not hold true for everyone.

You're it might be's are of course very limited in spite of it's apparent intended impression of variety, all suggesting an ill-ulterior motive. To say This might be because its alot easier to be considered a high authority among a very small pool of creationists than in a large pool of evolutionists could be akin to me saying It might be that evolutionist scientists revel in being placed on a pedestal, embracing the role as priests of intellectual enlightenment. There probably are some that do, but I don't want to trap all evolutionists into a 3 or 4 category box.

Your point is probably true, some evolutionist scientists could have ulterior motives. The point I was trying to make is that there are a variety of reasons for taking a given stance on any issue, so the fact that there is dissent over evolution doesn't necessarily mean there are flaws in the theory. The fact that there is a very small proportion of dissent among those who study this field, though, I think is fair reason to believe that the theory is sound.

Granted, there are those who prefer to see evolution removed from the American classroom, actual Creationist Scientists are not advocating that at all. For Creationist Scientists it's not an issue of whether or not evolution is sound (if there is no God for instance, it could very well be the best explanation). But...why not present the plausible alternative alongside evolution in the public classroom? In fact, is it safe to assume that just as there is a general lack of understanding of evolution (even among casual evolutionists), that there is a lack of understanding about Intelligent Design? Doesn't it seem a bit odd that evolution has to monopolize science education?

There are very odd things going on in the arena of science/religion (like issues of religious freedom) that interact with multiple arenas of society including. The evolution issue is all about religion.

As far as the 50-50 split, I'm not sure what you're talking about.

I still don't think that is true. There's no reason that a God can't exist and evolution still be a thing. 10% of scientists clearly think that is the case, and that God caused evolution, so there must be some religious viewpoint that allows it. So I think people who are very committed to their current beliefs and don't want to consider the possibility of adapting them to new information are making this into an issue when it doesn't need to be. This is a problem because it implies that they hold their beliefs not because they are right, but because thats the first thing they heard and they stuck with it.

But does God have to conform to evolution? There are highly qualified, even if only a few, who scientifically don't think so. So it goes back to my prior question pertaining to monopolization.

I think the reason people hate scientists nowadays is because they all listen to who shouts the loudest. Like vaccines. They have been PROVEN safe,but because some celebrities and quacks fanned the flame, they now cause awtisms and cancers

Quite frankly, no, I don't want to base any significance on a consensus of scientists to judge whether or not naturalistic evolution is true, because the 87% you're speaking of are atheists. Scientists, as wonderful and knowledgeable as they are, are not the authority on matters of religion (the spiritual realm). Scientists, like everyone else, are moved by bias, and are involved in politics (the Dr. James Watson scandal being a good example of politics).

This is not quite true. The 87% aren't atheist scientists, just scientists who don't believe God guided evolution. If 87% of scientists were atheists that would clash with the large majority of people who describe themselves as religious. The same poll where I got the 87% statistic also gives data to show that lots of religious people believe evolution is valid, so I don't think being part of that group of scientists precludes any of them from being religious. All I know for sure is that the other 13% definitely IS. But I'm willing to wager that 87% is a mix of atheists and religious scientists who simply believe some parts of the Bible are not literal. And probably a few of them are Hindu like me, because there are lots of non-Abrahamic religions which may or may not have a problem with evolution.

I had usually referenced the 95% of biological scientists that are members of the National Academy Of Sciences who profess to be atheists and agnostics. But even there, yes it's true that it doesn't specify how many are actually atheists. I tend to relate natural evolutionists to atheists, possibly because the one's that are fairly vocal about religion tend to be professed atheists. So yes, I can't claim that all scientists who fall into these various statistics are atheists.

The 40% who don't buy into evolution, for whatever reason, are not caught into the atheist manifesto paradigm. As hard as it may be to believe, the atheist mantras "God has not been proven", "There is no evidence of God", do not hold true for everyone.

You're it might be's are of course very limited in spite of it's apparent intended impression of variety, all suggesting an ill-ulterior motive. To say This might be because its alot easier to be considered a high authority among a very small pool of creationists than in a large pool of evolutionists could be akin to me saying It might be that evolutionist scientists revel in being placed on a pedestal, embracing the role as priests of intellectual enlightenment. There probably are some that do, but I don't want to trap all evolutionists into a 3 or 4 category box.

Your point is probably true, some evolutionist scientists could have ulterior motives. The point I was trying to make is that there are a variety of reasons for taking a given stance on any issue, so the fact that there is dissent over evolution doesn't necessarily mean there are flaws in the theory. The fact that there is a very small proportion of dissent among those who study this field, though, I think is fair reason to believe that the theory is sound.

Granted, there are those who prefer to see evolution removed from the American classroom, actual Creationist Scientists are not advocating that at all. For Creationist Scientists it's not an issue of whether or not evolution is sound (if there is no God for instance, it could very well be the best explanation). But...why not present the plausible alternative alongside evolution in the public classroom? In fact, is it safe to assume that just as there is a general lack of understanding of evolution (even among casual evolutionists), that there is a lack of understanding about Intelligent Design? Doesn't it seem a bit odd that evolution has to monopolize science education?

Because intelligent design is not science. It never has and never will be. It is in no way scientific.

There are very odd things going on in the arena of science/religion (like issues of religious freedom) that interact with multiple arenas of society including. The evolution issue is all about religion.

As far as the 50-50 split, I'm not sure what you're talking about.

I still don't think that is true. There's no reason that a God can't exist and evolution still be a thing. 10% of scientists clearly think that is the case, and that God caused evolution, so there must be some religious viewpoint that allows it. So I think people who are very committed to their current beliefs and don't want to consider the possibility of adapting them to new information are making this into an issue when it doesn't need to be. This is a problem because it implies that they hold their beliefs not because they are right, but because thats the first thing they heard and they stuck with it.

But does God have to conform to evolution? There are highly qualified, even if only a few, who scientifically don't think so. So it goes back to my prior question pertaining to monopolization.

Granted, there are those who prefer to see evolution removed from the American classroom, actual Creationist Scientists are not advocating that at all. For Creationist Scientists it's not an issue of whether or not evolution is sound (if there is no God for instance, it could very well be the best explanation). But...why not present the plausible alternative alongside evolution in the public classroom? In fact, is it safe to assume that just as there is a general lack of understanding of evolution (even among casual evolutionists), that there is a lack of understanding about Intelligent Design? Doesn't it seem a bit odd that evolution has to monopolize science education?

Because intelligent design is not science. It never has and never will be. It is in no way scientific.

I don't agree of course, but if it's an issue of technicality....Dramatic Arts is not Science, Hotel and Restaurant Management is not science, but they are both taught in public schools in different departments. Country and Western is not Jazz, but is still sold in a record/cd store in a different section. ID could certainly be presented in a different public school department, again, if some technicality prevents it from being in the science department.

I don't agree of course, but if it's an issue of technicality....Dramatic Arts is not Science, Hotel and Restaurant Management is not science, but they are both taught in public schools in different departments. Country and Western is not Jazz, but is still sold in a record/cd store in a different section. ID could certainly be presented in a different public school department, again, if some technicality prevents it from being in the science department.

Your proposed problem could easily be solved.

The problem is already solved in some places and it's called "seminary". They also have religious studies courses and degrees in a lot of colleges (or even Christian and Catholic schools). The problem is when people start trying to make such courses general education and a requirement for graduation for everyone else's children. Considering how many people in all parts of many countries belong to different religions and belief systems, it would be entirely wrong to enforce one belief system over another. Since you cannot morally enforce one belief system over another in a PUBLIC educational system, it is only prudent and logical to rely on teaching facts that can be observed and studied and only requiring courses that are necessary to function in society and the workplace, rather than theological beliefs. This is also the reason why dramatic arts and restaurant and hotel management are not required courses unless you are going into that particular field. The purpose of public school is not to indoctrinate other peoples children into a specific belief system and cannot morally be used for that purpose. If people want to learn about the belief of creationism, then they should simply attend the religious services of the church of their choice, elect to attend a seminary course (by choice rather than requirement), or study it privately. Even when teaching evolutionary principles, teachers should only stick to those things which have been observed and proven and refrain from dialogue on negative opinions about religion or religious beliefs. Besides, if we start requiring the teaching of creationism, then whose version do we teach? Which version of God(s) do we involve? Shouldn't we then also require students to learn the aboriginal "dreamtime" concept of creation and the Taoist, Hindu, Islamic, etc. versions too? If we're going to require students to learn those things, why don't we also require students to learn about the crucifixion and the Mormon prophet Joseph Smith and reincarnation and the Hindu Goddess, Kali? Maybe we should require all botanists to learn that scientists believe in photosynthesis but African mythology believes in Aja, the patron of the forest. Maybe birthing nurses should stop learning all this nonsense about the complications of childbirth and proven methods of dealing with those complications and instead should just learn about Xochiquetzal, goddess of fertility, beauty, female sexual power, protection of young mothers, of pregnancy, childbirth, vegetation, flowers and the crafts of women as believed by the Aztecs since that Goddess seems to cover all the bases. Maybe we should stop teaching musicians counterpoint, theory and harmony, and orchestration and simply have them learn all about Apollo, Benzaiten, and Saraswati. Pretty soon we don't have time for the subjects that are necessary for students to function in modern society , like math, English (language), writing, or even the basic science for their preferred field of study but instead we have a bunch of graduating 18 year olds who can barely function as an adult and aren't even fit to run a cash register in a grocery store, nonetheless, I'll be d@mned if they can't tell you all of the Mormon articles of faith and relate to you the teachings of Kabbalah.

If it makes you feel any better, I am not an atheist, but I can easily recognize the ridiculousness of trying to require that my beliefs (and only my beliefs) are taught in public schools even alongside scientific fact. Required courses in public schools are not the place for religious beliefs and there are more than enough institutions for teaching those things if people want to learn them.

At 5/22/2014 12:31:21 AM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:and medical experts. It is terrible and it is prevalent. Discuss.

Large corporations sometimes give large amounts of money to "independent research" so that real modern scientists will come out with the results that they desire. Sure, more reputable scientists may later debunk such lies (that is, if anyone wants to spend the large amounts of money to fund such research) and the product may even be found to be absolute sh*t later, but the company has already made millions of dollars, built up an almost irremovable reputation, and the worst they'll probably have to do later is say,"Whoops! Our mistake. I guess we'll have to try and correct that."

Pharmaceutical companies sometimes pay large amounts of money to medical experts to stand behind, represent, and even distribute their dishonest and sometimes extremely dangerous products. It is only after many people have died or have developed medical issues that will continue and only get worse until the day they die that we start seeing commercials saying,"If you or a close relative have taken (*such-and-such drug*) and have experienced the following symptoms or death, then you may be entitled to a large cash settlement through our law firm."

Studies and statistics sometimes come out only to have been reviewed by other institutions and found to have had bias or be just plain bad science. Sometimes religiously inclined "scientists" with actual degrees produce horribly bad science only with the intention of proving their beliefs to be true.

Scientists and medical professionals are just people, no better and no worse than anyone else, and they can be just as susceptible to corruption and lies as any politician, just as prone to illogical bias as any religious priest, and just as capable of making mistakes as any average fool. Getting a piece of paper from any school and even good grades does not make people honest beyond measure with impeccable integrity and incapable of error. Unfortunately, the general population cannot differentiate between "good" and "bad" science (or scientists). Even seeing the methods of obtaining certain statistics, they cannot recognize bias, poorly chosen test groups, data that has been "fudged", etc. They do not know enough about all the various very specialized medical and scientific fields to protect themselves and know when someone is lying or even changing proven fact to suit their needs. They cannot differentiate between reputable and dishonest institutions of scientific research. They do not know when it is reasonable to get a second opinion or even when it might actually be the best thing. They do not know which medical and scientific advice is outdated and what the latest research has shown/proven.

So, in other words, people sometimes demonize scientific and medical professionals because they are potentially two very very important types of professionals and can affect most people in the most positive and/or devastating ways and yet they can be just as prone to bias, mistakes, and dishonesty as any other professional and most average people cannot tell when they are not. We probably don't really demonize scientists and medical professionals any more than we demonize any other professional. They definitely receive more trust than your average politician and more respect than your average celebrity (think Lindsey Lohan). But when scientists and medical professionals do get it wrong, the results can be incredibly devastating. Unfortunately, scientists and medical professionals are nowhere remotely even close to infallible and until they are, the only protection people can have is a healthy self-preserving skepticism at best (downright demonization and hatred at worst). Until we, as a society, can completely remove the garbage and lying filth and stop bad science and medical practice from happening, people will never fully be able to rely on and put their absolute and complete unconditional trust in scientists or medical professionals. And it would be unreasonable and illogical to expect anything else.

Now, on the other hand, when people completely ignore modern scientific and medical knowledge without any substantive reason to do so, it's because of stupidity. Plain and simple. I personally have no idea how that can be fixed. Ignorance can be educated away, but stupidity is usually willful and stubborn beyond any attempts at correction. Since we can't correct it and we can't remove them in any moral way, then I guess we just have to live with them.